-
You heard it here first: Black Friday 2024 has arrived!
1080 and 1200p monitors
- Thread starter zex95966
- Start date
Solution
revolution2718
Honorable
- Apr 8, 2012
- 272
- 0
- 10,860
You honestly would not be able to tell the difference until you get up to around a 50 inch monitor, and even then it would be pretty slight.
ssddx
Titan
- May 27, 2009
- 17,053
- 5
- 74,965
hello again...
remember that an actual screenshot comparing the two would be useless except to compare visual sizes of the images with one another. on two models of the same size the 1920x1080 (16:9) will be wider horizontally and thinner vertically than a 1920x1200 (16:10) which will be thinner horizontally and wider vertically if measured in physical units.
also two pictures at native resolution would be scaled to fit your screen thereby distorting any results.
also you would be viewing images taken from the desktop which doesnt reflect upon quality at all of the screen. the screens could be a $99 budget model and a $999 pro model and you wouldnt tell the difference in this test.
a camera photo of the two screens side by side is also inconclusive as it just compares physical sizes. a ppi increase of 110 to 113 is not going to be noticible. even if it were you are restricted the the quality of the camera and ability of the photographer which greatly skews any results.
the only way to accurately judge image quality is to see the two monitors side by side in person.
if you want to judge pixels per inch on same sized monitors here is a little example.
for two monitors, both 20" diagonal:
16:9, 1920x1080. horizontal width 17.4316". approximate ppi 110.1448.
16:10, 1920x1200. horizontal width 16.9601". approximate ppi 113.2069.
as you can see there is a rise in overall ppi but as revolution stated it isn't much to brag about.
---
what you should look at instead is what screen ratio suits you?
16:9 is perfect for movies and any prerendered 1080p content. any other content which is not rendered-on-demand will be letterboxed.
16:9 is okay for games but larger monitors seem to be prefered such as a 24" over a 20" due to the lack of vertical height.
16:9 is okay for office work but the vertical height can cause a few issues.
16:10 will be letterboxed for 1080p content.
16:10 is preferred by some for gaming but offers a slightly less wide field of view. i suppose it comes down to preferencess.
16:10 is better for office work due to the increased vertical space.
---
feel free to state your purposes for comparing the two monitors and we can sure help out with some ideas. remember that ratio and pixels aren't the only thing to worry about. other things to think about are panel type, backlight, mount type, connection type, etc which we can discuss when you respond.
remember that an actual screenshot comparing the two would be useless except to compare visual sizes of the images with one another. on two models of the same size the 1920x1080 (16:9) will be wider horizontally and thinner vertically than a 1920x1200 (16:10) which will be thinner horizontally and wider vertically if measured in physical units.
also two pictures at native resolution would be scaled to fit your screen thereby distorting any results.
also you would be viewing images taken from the desktop which doesnt reflect upon quality at all of the screen. the screens could be a $99 budget model and a $999 pro model and you wouldnt tell the difference in this test.
a camera photo of the two screens side by side is also inconclusive as it just compares physical sizes. a ppi increase of 110 to 113 is not going to be noticible. even if it were you are restricted the the quality of the camera and ability of the photographer which greatly skews any results.
the only way to accurately judge image quality is to see the two monitors side by side in person.
if you want to judge pixels per inch on same sized monitors here is a little example.
for two monitors, both 20" diagonal:
16:9, 1920x1080. horizontal width 17.4316". approximate ppi 110.1448.
16:10, 1920x1200. horizontal width 16.9601". approximate ppi 113.2069.
as you can see there is a rise in overall ppi but as revolution stated it isn't much to brag about.
---
what you should look at instead is what screen ratio suits you?
16:9 is perfect for movies and any prerendered 1080p content. any other content which is not rendered-on-demand will be letterboxed.
16:9 is okay for games but larger monitors seem to be prefered such as a 24" over a 20" due to the lack of vertical height.
16:9 is okay for office work but the vertical height can cause a few issues.
16:10 will be letterboxed for 1080p content.
16:10 is preferred by some for gaming but offers a slightly less wide field of view. i suppose it comes down to preferencess.
16:10 is better for office work due to the increased vertical space.
---
feel free to state your purposes for comparing the two monitors and we can sure help out with some ideas. remember that ratio and pixels aren't the only thing to worry about. other things to think about are panel type, backlight, mount type, connection type, etc which we can discuss when you respond.
- Apr 30, 2012
- 114
- 0
- 10,690
well I found this video helps a lot when comparing the first number in the resolution: (the second number doesn't change much)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0NQqy_7BWQ
I can see more of the game (and yes, my primary use is gaming)
and these pics helped to show the difference in quality between 720 and 1080:http://www.lcd-tv-ratings.net/lcd/720p-vs-1080p
In my case I care most of all about seeing as much of the game as possible, but quality is important as well so I doubt I will got below 1080p... after all it's kinda pointless to get a nice video card for my computer and then play at 720p and and 60mhrtz (which I think means it caps the FPS at 60...)
anyways thanks for all your help, was still informative.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0NQqy_7BWQ
I can see more of the game (and yes, my primary use is gaming)
and these pics helped to show the difference in quality between 720 and 1080:http://www.lcd-tv-ratings.net/lcd/720p-vs-1080p
In my case I care most of all about seeing as much of the game as possible, but quality is important as well so I doubt I will got below 1080p... after all it's kinda pointless to get a nice video card for my computer and then play at 720p and and 60mhrtz (which I think means it caps the FPS at 60...)
anyways thanks for all your help, was still informative.
ssddx
Titan
- May 27, 2009
- 17,053
- 5
- 74,965
its a misconception that said monitors allow you to see more of the game.
in shooter games the only thing that changes is that wider monitors (16:9) allow you to set your field of view higher so that you can see more in perepheral vision in game without noticible distortion then you could on a 16:10. the difference is minimal but noticible. personally i prefer the old 4:3 layout.
in mmo games you might make the hud smaller but this depends on if the hud autoscales to a percentage of screen size or not. you dont actually see more. your field of view might change a bit depending on your choice. more height or more width but overall pretty much equal in total volume.
in strategy games you might be able to see more due to units being smaller unless the game autoscales. alot of newer games seem to autoscale so that people with high resolution monitors dont have an advantage which makes a better monitor almost a negative. most games support zoom now anyways which negates any gain.
60hertz (60hz) is the standard refresh rate output on video cards. you can equate this to around 60 frames per second (60fps) output. so while your video card might be able to render 80fps ultimately it doesnt matter. the only monitors that can take advantage are 120hz tn panels but tn panels are generally regarded as the lowest tier of monitors. so its your choice: quality or refresh rate.
personally.... i think the difference between 60hz and 120hz is negligible. your call.
in shooter games the only thing that changes is that wider monitors (16:9) allow you to set your field of view higher so that you can see more in perepheral vision in game without noticible distortion then you could on a 16:10. the difference is minimal but noticible. personally i prefer the old 4:3 layout.
in mmo games you might make the hud smaller but this depends on if the hud autoscales to a percentage of screen size or not. you dont actually see more. your field of view might change a bit depending on your choice. more height or more width but overall pretty much equal in total volume.
in strategy games you might be able to see more due to units being smaller unless the game autoscales. alot of newer games seem to autoscale so that people with high resolution monitors dont have an advantage which makes a better monitor almost a negative. most games support zoom now anyways which negates any gain.
60hertz (60hz) is the standard refresh rate output on video cards. you can equate this to around 60 frames per second (60fps) output. so while your video card might be able to render 80fps ultimately it doesnt matter. the only monitors that can take advantage are 120hz tn panels but tn panels are generally regarded as the lowest tier of monitors. so its your choice: quality or refresh rate.
personally.... i think the difference between 60hz and 120hz is negligible. your call.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram